On Jan 2, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Richard Jones ***@***.***> wrote: I have done a detailed side-by-side comparison of the single photon response in the FCal and the BCal. See slides posted here for details. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ap0ifkk7GVCLq-EJuyXuSmxgsB2u-RNZmTU4et_WlFo/edit?usp=sharing I believe this issue can be dismissed. There are energy calibration systematics with polar angle in both the FCal and the BCal that are significantly larger than the hdgeant/hdgeant4 differences. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Naively, this seems conflict with a check that I did about 2 months ago, but perhaps I made a mistake. (Or else someone recalibrated the MC between then and now.) https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3621347 Matt --------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Shepherd, Professor Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 Office Phone: +1 812 856 5808 > On Jan 2, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Richard Jones ***@***.***> wrote: > > I have done a detailed side-by-side comparison of the single photon response in the FCal and the BCal. See slides posted here for details. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ap0ifkk7GVCLq-EJuyXuSmxgsB2u-RNZmTU4et_WlFo/edit?usp=sharing > > I believe this issue can be dismissed. There are energy calibration systematics with polar angle in both the FCal and the BCal that are significantly larger than the hdgeant/hdgeant4 differences. > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. > — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWNVlBRmkaQa1dLZQuijJ5f81kqNOks5u_dEFgaJpZM4XEm7l> .

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:11 AM Richard Jones ***@***.***> wrote: Matt and all, What I show here are straight line fits, and not sensitive to the nonlinear correction. There are non-linear effects in these sim data as well. The issue I was addressing here was the "energy scale", a discrepancy between the calorimeter energy scales between hdgeant and hdgeant4. Here is a link to the issue posted to github. #67 This is only the beginning of matching the calorimeter response in MC to real data, but we need to begin by understanding any differences we see between hdgeant and hdgeant4. Once this is ok, then we can start work on modeling the nonlinear response in mcsmear. -Richard Jones On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:44 AM Matthew Shepherd ***@***.***> wrote: > > Naively, this seems conflict with a check that I did about 2 months ago, > but perhaps I made a mistake. (Or else someone recalibrated the MC between > then and now.) > > https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3621347 > > Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matthew Shepherd, Professor > Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265 > 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 > > Office Phone: +1 812 856 5808 > > > On Jan 2, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Richard Jones ***@***.***> > wrote: > > > > I have done a detailed side-by-side comparison of the single photon > response in the FCal and the BCal. See slides posted here for details. > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ap0ifkk7GVCLq-EJuyXuSmxgsB2u-RNZmTU4et_WlFo/edit?usp=sharing > > > > I believe this issue can be dismissed. There are energy calibration > systematics with polar angle in both the FCal and the BCal that are > significantly larger than the hdgeant/hdgeant4 differences. > > > > — > > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. > > > > — > You are receiving this because you commented. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#67 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWNVlBRmkaQa1dLZQuijJ5f81kqNOks5u_dEFgaJpZM4XEm7l> > . >

On 1/3/19 7:17 AM, Richard Jones wrote: P.S. At the same time as we work on the nonlinear response in the FCAL, I think we also need to work on the theta-dependence. Because the fcal real-data calibration uses pi0's, its position dependence will be different from MC. This effect appears to be of the same order of magnitude as the non-linear discrepancy shown by Matt in the above-referenced logbook entry. In fact, to some extent they may feed into each other in simulated physics events, due to the strong angle-energy correlation in fcal showers. The two are clearly separated in a study like the one I report here, where there is no energy-angle correlation in the generator. -rtj On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:11 AM Richard Jones ***@***.***> wrote: > Matt and all, > > What I show here are straight line fits, and not sensitive to the > nonlinear correction. There are non-linear effects in these sim data as > well. The issue I was addressing here was the "energy scale", a discrepancy > between the calorimeter energy scales between hdgeant and hdgeant4. Here is > a link to the issue posted to github. > #67 > > This is only the beginning of matching the calorimeter response in MC to > real data, but we need to begin by understanding any differences we see > between hdgeant and hdgeant4. Once this is ok, then we can start work on > modeling the nonlinear response in mcsmear. > > -Richard Jones > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:44 AM Matthew Shepherd ***@***.***> > wrote: > >> >> Naively, this seems conflict with a check that I did about 2 months ago, >> but perhaps I made a mistake. (Or else someone recalibrated the MC between >> then and now.) >> >> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3621347 >> >> Matt >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Matthew Shepherd, Professor >> Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265 >> 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 >> >> Office Phone: +1 812 856 5808 >> >> > On Jan 2, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Richard Jones ***@***.***> >> wrote: >> > >> > I have done a detailed side-by-side comparison of the single photon >> response in the FCal and the BCal. See slides posted here for details. >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ap0ifkk7GVCLq-EJuyXuSmxgsB2u-RNZmTU4et_WlFo/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > I believe this issue can be dismissed. There are energy calibration >> systematics with polar angle in both the FCal and the BCal that are >> significantly larger than the hdgeant/hdgeant4 differences. >> > >> > — >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. >> > >> >> — >> You are receiving this because you commented. >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub >> <#67 (comment)>, >> or mute the thread >> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWNVlBRmkaQa1dLZQuijJ5f81kqNOks5u_dEFgaJpZM4XEm7l> >> . >> > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_JeffersonLab_HDGeant4_issues_67-23issuecomment-2D451127723&d=DwMFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=7lr-B1WLM55fdMxuAkgvJQ&m=z-rTG4dWBkNAGZ30crdan8rQNt3mXz5R82Ek43kzqIc&s=_tZMLXtwCc6cu6QUhZay3-Q8mQsU2jDckXLuYktEevU&e=>, or mute the thread <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AM8awJ-5FU7fri4rbXM0HnbmC7m64vIgaZks5u-5FfT3gaJpZM4XEm7l&d=DwMFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=7lr-B1WLM55fdMxuAkgvJQ&m=z-rTG4dWBkNAGZ30crdan8rQNt3mXz5R82Ek43kzqIc&s=x_1ufaDeO_JdcTrvnYxWnrcbbi__-uUW88Ej90K1dRY&e=>.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM dalton ***@***.***> wrote: Richard, I noticed that in the BCAL you throw events with energy more than 500 MeV but sometimes the thrown value that is plotted is less than this. This occurs hdgeant but not hdgeant4. Can you explain this? Mark — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWCXtZesyjmEE0i51wN0tYKjsFsJtks5u_irMgaJpZM4XEm7l> .

Hi Richard, Thanks for following up on issues of energy reconstruction in both hdgeant and hdgeant4. We need to check this systematically. It would be good if you could present this work at our next Cal Working group meeting (Thu Jan 10). Also, could you post your slides to the portal (or the log book)? The google drive location is convenient in the short term, but gets lost over time. For the BCAL, in particular, we need to understand the origin of the offset that you see between generated and reconstructed energies. Cheers, Elton. Elton Smith Jefferson Lab MS 12H3 12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4 Newport News, VA 23606 (757)269-7625 (757)269-6331 fax On 1/3/19 7:17 AM, Richard Jones wrote: > P.S. At the same time as we work on the nonlinear response in the FCAL, I > think we also need to work on the theta-dependence. Because the fcal > real-data calibration uses pi0's, its position dependence will be > different > from MC. This effect appears to be of the same order of magnitude as the > non-linear discrepancy shown by Matt in the above-referenced logbook > entry. > In fact, to some extent they may feed into each other in simulated physics > events, due to the strong angle-energy correlation in fcal showers. > The two > are clearly separated in a study like the one I report here, where > there is > no energy-angle correlation in the generator. > -rtj > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:11 AM Richard Jones ***@***.***> wrote: > > > Matt and all, > > > > What I show here are straight line fits, and not sensitive to the > > nonlinear correction. There are non-linear effects in these sim data as > > well. The issue I was addressing here was the "energy scale", a > discrepancy > > between the calorimeter energy scales between hdgeant and hdgeant4. > Here is > > a link to the issue posted to github. > > #67 > > > > This is only the beginning of matching the calorimeter response in MC to > > real data, but we need to begin by understanding any differences we see > > between hdgeant and hdgeant4. Once this is ok, then we can start work on > > modeling the nonlinear response in mcsmear. > > > > -Richard Jones > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:44 AM Matthew Shepherd > ***@***.***> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Naively, this seems conflict with a check that I did about 2 months > ago, > >> but perhaps I made a mistake. (Or else someone recalibrated the MC > between > >> then and now.) > >> > >> https://logbooks.jlab.org/entry/3621347 > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Matthew Shepherd, Professor > >> Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain West 265 > >> 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 > >> > >> Office Phone: +1 812 856 5808 > >> > >> > On Jan 2, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Richard Jones ***@***.*** > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > I have done a detailed side-by-side comparison of the single photon > >> response in the FCal and the BCal. See slides posted here for details. > >> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ap0ifkk7GVCLq-EJuyXuSmxgsB2u-RNZmTU4et_WlFo/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > >> > I believe this issue can be dismissed. There are energy calibration > >> systematics with polar angle in both the FCal and the BCal that are > >> significantly larger than the hdgeant/hdgeant4 differences. > >> > > >> > — > >> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > >> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. > >> > > >> > >> — > >> You are receiving this because you commented. > >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > >> > < #67 (comment) >, > >> or mute the thread > >> > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWNVlBRmkaQa1dLZQuijJ5f81kqNOks5u_dEFgaJpZM4XEm7l > > >> . > >> > > > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_JeffersonLab_HDGeant4_issues_67-23issuecomment-2D451127723&d=DwMFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=7lr-B1WLM55fdMxuAkgvJQ&m=z-rTG4dWBkNAGZ30crdan8rQNt3mXz5R82Ek43kzqIc&s=_tZMLXtwCc6cu6QUhZay3-Q8mQsU2jDckXLuYktEevU&e=>, > or mute the thread > < https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_notifications_unsubscribe-2Dauth_AM8awJ-5FU7fri4rbXM0HnbmC7m64vIgaZks5u-5FfT3gaJpZM4XEm7l&d=DwMFaQ&c=lz9TcOasaINaaC3U7FbMev2lsutwpI4--09aP8Lu18s&r=7lr-B1WLM55fdMxuAkgvJQ&m=z-rTG4dWBkNAGZ30crdan8rQNt3mXz5R82Ek43kzqIc&s=x_1ufaDeO_JdcTrvnYxWnrcbbi__-uUW88Ej90K1dRY&e= >. > — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWLZXxFund3dbDM58lTDCmZ-6PJdIks5u_iu2gaJpZM4XEm7l> .

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:45 PM Sean Dobbs ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Richard, Since I brought this up in the first place, I should take a fresh look at the simulations I was running. Just to make sure I'm on the same page, is the comparison you showed just on the output of hdgeant[4], or is it post-mcsmear & reconstruction? ---Sean — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#67 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHeFWI83_BRFN_ihGfwzRTtjV8WxGGAwks5u_nnkgaJpZM4XEm7l> .